SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Independent League Rule Changes
|
Post by sarasoxer on Apr 15, 2021 8:14:35 GMT -5
I'm all for baseball experimenting with different rules changes to preserve the game's more historical performance parameters including moving the mound back to that end.
As someone above pointed out, the mound distance of 60'6" is the result a mistake. That standard is not etched on the mount. Yes it's ingrained but in a sport that is sometimes hamstrung to it's detriment by adherence to tradition.
Influx and development of many more high velocity power and specialty pitchers, rapid increase in strikeout volumes, all or nothing batter mentality, shifts, failure of hitters to adjust to shifts, and overall lowered averages have changed the parameters of the game. The "traditional" balances have become skewed.
In 1968 the league wide batting average was a then considered abomination at .237. The mound height was lowered. (Twice) The American League adopted the DH. As of today, early season yes, there are 14 teams batting .229 or less! The Cubs are at .163 and Cleveland at .197. Only 2 teams are above .268.
In the interest of accuracy and fairness we've seen replay adopted and will likely some day witness 'robot' umps calling balls and strikes. What is more traditional to the game than "Blue" making calls?
Other changes have been made around the edges, extra inning play, double header innings, the ball being slightly 'dumbed down' (likely will again...easier than moving back fences). The pitch clock is coming.
So I'm for modifying rules that bring back the action and balance that were in the game we all loved. That's the "tradition" that I want to preserve! Tho kicking and screaming, baseball has done it before and it will again.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Apr 15, 2021 8:27:00 GMT -5
I'm all for baseball experimenting with different rules changes to preserve the game's more historical performance parameters including moving the mound back to that end. As someone above pointed out, the mound distance of 60'6" is the result a mistake. That standard is not etched on the mount. Yes it's ingrained but in a sport that is sometimes hamstrung to it's detriment by adherence to tradition. Influx and development of many more high velocity power and specialty pitchers, rapid increase in strikeout volumes, all or nothing batter mentality, shifts, failure of hitters to adjust to shifts, and overall lowered averages have changed the parameters of the game. The "traditional" balances have become skewed. In 1968 the league wide batting average was a then considered abomination at .237. The mound height was lowered. (Twice) The American League adopted the DH. As of today, early season yes, there are 14 teams batting .229 or less! The Cubs are at .163 and Cleveland at .197. Only 2 teams are above .268. In the interest of accuracy and fairness we've seen replay adopted and will likely some day witness 'robot' umps calling balls and strikes. What is more traditional to the game than "Blue" making calls? Other changes have been made around the edges, extra inning play, double header innings, the ball being slightly 'dumbed down' (likely will again...easier than moving back fences). The pitch clock is coming. So I'm for modifying rules that bring back the action and balance that were in the game we all loved. That's the "tradition" that I want to preserve! Tho kicking and screaming, baseball has done it before and it will again. This is fair, and I’m not a dogmatic traditionalist. I like many of the new rules. I do wonder, though, if they are barking up the wrong tree. That is, have pitchers suddenly (or gradually) gotten so much of an edge because they are so good, or have hitters been encouraged to take an approach that results in fewer hits. I’ve been chastised on this board for citing BA... “it doesn’t matter.” And it may well be that at a .230 hitter can rack up WAR with walks and power. But it *does* matter in the viewing experience. I guess the fundamental question is: is there a conflict between a scientific method to winning and a good looking game? If so, is that addressed by hamstringing pitchers? Would moving the mound drastically reduce Dalbec’s K rate, for example? Maybe. But I’m not so sure.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Apr 15, 2021 9:45:00 GMT -5
You know what would solve *all* of these problems? Redistributing the weight of the ball so you get lower spin rates (pitchers' stuff plays down) and deadening it so hitters can't take advantage of lower spin rates to just mash a bunch of homers. More balls in play, fewer strikeouts, less incentive for the uppercut hitting approach.
There is no reason for there to be a conflict between a scientific approach to winning and a good looking game; you just have to set the parameters of the game (including the physical properties of the ball) in such a way that science and art, so to say, come into alignment. It's not rocket science. (It is fluid dynamics, I guess... but it's not rocket science!)
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Apr 15, 2021 9:50:50 GMT -5
You know what would solve *all* of these problems? Redistributing the weight of the ball so you get lower spin rates (pitchers' stuff plays down) and deadening it so hitters can't take advantage of lower spin rates to just mash a bunch of homers. More balls in play, fewer strikeouts, less incentive for the uppercut hitting approach. There is no reason for there to be a conflict between a scientific approach to winning and a good looking game; you just have to set the parameters of the game (including the physical properties of the ball) in such a way that science and art, so to say, come into alignment. It's not rocket science. (It is fluid dynamics, I guess... but it's not rocket science!) No, I agree... and you are making the sort of suggestions I would back. Instead of simply hampering pitchers, you make changes that change that scientific approach, right? So you say decrease the *appeal* of the 3 true outcome approach. Exactly so. I just think if you do one thing... make pitchers slightly worse... but not the other, you will potential *encourage* guys to go up there teeing off. And I’m not sure that will make the game more exciting.
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Apr 15, 2021 15:50:07 GMT -5
I am thinking that the longer distance the pitchers are throwing will lead to more balls out of the strike zone and more walks.....doesn't sound very exciting to me.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Apr 16, 2021 20:19:09 GMT -5
My objection has to do with this being done in only one league which (as I understand it) is comprised of fringe MLB prospects/players. It seem very unfair to me to apply this to guys who are kind of on their last chance to make it or make it back.
|
|
|
Post by soxinsf on Apr 16, 2021 21:01:46 GMT -5
You know what would solve *all* of these problems? Redistributing the weight of the ball so you get lower spin rates (pitchers' stuff plays down) and deadening it so hitters can't take advantage of lower spin rates to just mash a bunch of homers. More balls in play, fewer strikeouts, less incentive for the uppercut hitting approach. There is no reason for there to be a conflict between a scientific approach to winning and a good looking game; you just have to set the parameters of the game (including the physical properties of the ball) in such a way that science and art, so to say, come into alignment. It's not rocket science. (It is fluid dynamics, I guess... but it's not rocket science!) No, I agree... and you are making the sort of suggestions I would back. Instead of simply hampering pitchers, you make changes that change that scientific approach, right? So you say decrease the *appeal* of the 3 true outcome approach. Exactly so. I just think if you do one thing... make pitchers slightly worse... but not the other, you will potential *encourage* guys to go up there teeing off. And I’m not sure that will make the game more exciting. It seems to me that the goals and the tactics here are not well aligned. If the objectives are to cut down on strike outs and home runs and seeing more balls in play inside the park, there are actions that might work better than pushing the mound further from home plate. One would be to lower the mound. Another would be to change the ball both deadening it but also changing the spin rate as advocated by incandenza. One that I would not favor but would work would be to increase the size of the ball. That would result in more balls in play. But the idea offends my sense of baseball propriety. How about shortening the distances between the bases. That would result in more infield hits, more runners taking the extra base, more stolen bases. What I am saying is that organized baseball has other options beyond pushing the mound back a foot.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Apr 16, 2021 21:53:19 GMT -5
My objection has to do with this being done in only one league which (as I understand it) is comprised of fringe MLB prospects/players. It seem very unfair to me to apply this to guys who are kind of on their last chance to make it or make it back. Exactly how I view this. Such a change should not be done in an experimental way like this. Can't we run some simulations instead of doing in an actual, live ball with live people scenario like this?
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Apr 27, 2021 10:15:17 GMT -5
Nope.. Nope..
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Apr 27, 2021 10:27:25 GMT -5
I like this as a minor-league-only rule as it could add more excitement to keep fans until the end of the game while removing the chance of extra innings lasting for hours. I'm not sure of the reason for the other two rule changes (at first glance I thought they were related to the first rule - which was confusing) but I'm guessing they want to make sure all bench players have a chance to play each game, to help in their development.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Apr 27, 2021 10:34:12 GMT -5
if we keep making all these changes to MLB we may as well play blernsball
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Apr 27, 2021 10:42:15 GMT -5
I like to keep an open mind, but hard no to all three of these in affiliated ball. Even the home run derby thing doesn't make sense - I'd legit rather them just call it a tie after 12.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Apr 27, 2021 15:06:02 GMT -5
I like to keep an open mind, but hard no to all three of these in affiliated ball. Even the home run derby thing doesn't make sense - I'd legit rather them just call it a tie after 12. Why 12? Outside of playoffs, why not just end games at 9 innings regardless of score? I don't like ties in MLB, but in MiLB, where the main point is to develop young players to become skilled enough for MLB, why are extra innings needed?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Apr 27, 2021 16:37:02 GMT -5
I like to keep an open mind, but hard no to all three of these in affiliated ball. Even the home run derby thing doesn't make sense - I'd legit rather them just call it a tie after 12. Why 12? Outside of playoffs, why not just end games at 9 innings regardless of score? I don't like ties in MLB, but in MiLB, where the main point is to develop young players to become skilled enough for MLB, why are extra innings needed? Fair point. I'm just thinking in terms of do a short overtime in case of a tie then call it before it gets silly, but yeah, your reasoning also makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Apr 27, 2021 17:56:06 GMT -5
I like to keep an open mind, but hard no to all three of these in affiliated ball. Even the home run derby thing doesn't make sense - I'd legit rather them just call it a tie after 12. Why 12? Outside of playoffs, why not just end games at 9 innings regardless of score? I don't like ties in MLB, but in MiLB, where the main point is to develop young players to become skilled enough for MLB, why are extra innings needed? After years of wondering about this given how prevalent a tie is in Europe, I've just become resolved to thinking that America needs resolution. For the same reason, winning the league in Europe goes to to the team with the best record rather than the winner of a knockout tournament (which to be fair, is done via non-league tournaments). I feel like ties in baseball wouldn't be a bad thing.
|
|
|